This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.

Bug 183610 - [69cat] LowPerformance took 124328 ms.
Summary: [69cat] LowPerformance took 124328 ms.
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 149538
Alias: None
Product: editor
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Hints & Annotations (show other bugs)
Version: 6.x
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal (vote)
Assignee: issues@editor
URL:
Keywords: PERFORMANCE
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-04-06 22:52 UTC by misterm
Modified: 2010-05-11 07:32 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Exception Reporter: 161932


Attachments
nps snapshot (256.00 KB, application/nps)
2010-04-06 22:52 UTC, misterm
Details
nps snapshot (52.38 KB, application/nps)
2010-05-05 01:08 UTC, tbrunhoff
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description misterm 2010-04-06 22:52:21 UTC
Build: NetBeans IDE Dev (Build 100403-97deba2209a4)
VM: Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM, 10.0-b19, Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment, 1.6.0_04-b12
OS: Windows XP
Maximum slowness yet reported was 124328 ms, average is 46347
Comment 1 misterm 2010-04-06 22:52:27 UTC
Created attachment 96822 [details]
nps snapshot
Comment 2 tbrunhoff 2010-05-05 01:08:24 UTC
Created attachment 98461 [details]
nps snapshot

Cut and paste.
Comment 3 tbrunhoff 2010-05-05 01:13:14 UTC
From a user's standpoint, this appears to be a duplicate of bug 185466 (or vice versa). All the dev versions from the last month are pretty much unusable for editing large files. This may just be the editor, but in my case there is consistent performance problems with editing large c++ files. I've addedd issues@cnd.netbeans.org to the cc list.

Product Version: NetBeans IDE Dev (Build 201005040200)
Java: 1.6.0_18; Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM 16.0-b13
System: Linux version 2.6.32.9-70.fc12.x86_64 running on amd64; UTF-8; en_US (nb)
Userdir: /home/toddb/.netbeans/dev
Comment 4 David Strupl 2010-05-05 07:54:55 UTC
I will check the snapshots.
Comment 5 David Strupl 2010-05-05 08:29:04 UTC
There are several kinds of snapshots attached to this bug report. I suggest to check only the latest ones since the older ones were most probably duplicates of issues when the new view hierarchy was slow and turned on. The latest snapshots indicate some problems related to C++ - indeed they seem similar to those in 185466. I am passing this issue to the cnd team because we need to at least evaluate what was going on when the problem were noticed.

The problems looks like there is something wrong with the cnd modules adding/removing annotations. The AWT EDT is blocked on synchronization. Please have a look and if you think that the problem is in the editor please assign back. Please note that C++ related files are the only ones that seem to suffer from this ...
Comment 6 Leonid Lenyashin 2010-05-05 09:33:04 UTC
Sasha, 
can you please check if it is a dup of #185447?
Comment 7 Alexander Simon 2010-05-05 10:38:42 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> The problems looks like there is something wrong with the cnd modules
> adding/removing annotations. The AWT EDT is blocked on synchronization. Please
> have a look and if you think that the problem is in the editor please assign
> back. Please note that C++ related files are the only ones that seem to suffer
> from this ...
Difference is in file size. 50K lines is ordinary file size for C/C++ projects.
Editor cannot support such files with reasonable speed.
IMHO problem well known, see:
Bug 149538 -  low performance of Annotations.addAnnotation()
Comment 8 David Strupl 2010-05-10 14:37:08 UTC
Are you saying that this is duplicate of 149538?
Comment 9 Alexander Simon 2010-05-10 16:41:57 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> Are you saying that this is duplicate of 149538?
Yes sure, snap shot shot that EDT spends 2 second (from 2.5) in addAnnotatation.
By the way method has a squared relationship of number of annotations.
Comment 10 David Strupl 2010-05-11 07:32:17 UTC
Ok, I am marking this report as duplicate and will raise the priority of the older one.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 149538 ***